Not bitter, disgusted. In some public schools, students are prohibited from wearing religious symbols or t-shirts with religious messages while other students are allowed to wear anti-religious t-shirts.
I would like to see some proof of this.
Students in some schools are being force-fed the gay rights agenda without their parents' permission (such as schools in California where they forced elementary school students to watch a sexually-suggestive gay-themed play).
I doubt they were "forced" to watch and, even so, your description reveals too few details on this play to judge it.
Secularists are trying to keep religious expression out of the public arena to the point where they even object to menorahs and manger scenes during Chanukkah and Christmas.
In a republican democracy, they may object all they want.
Children in some schools aren't allowed to sing Christmas carols (or even call the holiday Christmas).
I would like to see some evidence of this.
"Diversity" is applied only to those who agree with the leftist, feminist, and homosexual agendas. Some colleges are denying Christians and conservatives (the two groups are not the same) the same right of having campus groups that liberal, feminist and homosexual groups have.
Again, I would like to see some evidence of this.
Judicial activists have determined that a student who wants to receive public money for college can't pursue a degree program that leads to certain occupations just because those occupations happen to be religious -- this discriminates against religious people.
If the government endorses a candidate for religion it is no different from encouraging a national religion. Your "certain occupations" probably means minsiters and priests, and the government has decided not to give grants so that other religions are not discriminated against. I doubt the colleges also offer courses on how to be the leader of a coven or a druid.
Judicial activists decided that women have the right to murder their unborn children, thereby denying these humans (unborn children) the right to life.
An opinion, as Perspective states.
Judicial activists have decided that virtual child pornography is free speech.
This has nothing to do with the topic, but I would still be interested in seeing some proof.
Again, the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, not freedom from religion.
As you keep repeating. Your Constitution outlines the powers of your government. The Bill of Rights, from what I understand, outlines what the government cannot do. I fail to see why you keep repeating this, since the government is not the one at fault here for making laws in favour of freedom from religion.
There is no "seems to suggest" in the Constitution, except in the minds of judical activists who are legislating from the bench. If secularists want the right to free expression then they have to allow non-secularists those same rights instead of fighting to eliminate all public expression of religion.
I will refrain from commenting on this until I see some proof behind thes allegations.
One of the biggest problems in America is the fact that we no longer seem to have a common, American, culture. Call it xenophobic if you want but Americans are Americans and not hyphenated hybrids. Martin Luther King, Jr. worked toward a color-blind society where a person is not judged by the color of his skin but by the content of his character but diversity prevents that society from coming about and that's why I'm so insistent on a common American identity: diversity is a nail in America's coffin. I don't hear blacks in Canada calling themselves "African-Canadian" or Asians in Britain calling themselves "Asian-British." It's only been since the hippies and flower children (who are now running many of the institutions they tried to overthrow) that there has been this rejection of a common, American identity. And, yes, I find that offensive.
Go back to where you wrote of Martin Luther King. Although you are saying a person should not be judged by the colour of his skin, you are saying that a person should be judged on how different they are from your own culture. You are saying that since they are not part of some homogenous culture, you cannot identify with them, so you cannot accept - or even tolerate - them. This is no worse than judging people by the colour of their skin. You are judging people by the colour of their culture and still ignoring the content of their character.
Having a color-blind and accepting society does not mean you can only accept them if their ideas resemble your own.
Ever since children were told they could no longer pray in school...
I have never heard that children are not allowed to pray in school if it does not disrupt the class. Please provide proof for your claims. You have gone from saying "some schools.." to the absolute "children could no longer pray in school". From what I understand, any school seeking to put in place a "no praying in school outside of classrooms" rule is usually challenged and always loses.
... (which went beyond simply saying the state could not mandate prayer), civil behavior has been replaced with drugs, guns, and metal detectors.
I fail to see the correlation. Believing for a moment that what you said is true, how does preventing outward displays of religious expression lead to "drugs, guns and metal detectors"?
We went from a culture where there were absolute standards of right and wrong to a culture where everyone is responsible for our chosen behavior except us -- and I blame the secularists for this because these are direct consequences of removing free religious expression from the public square.
I blame a culture that has been taught to venerate money, but I admit I have no proof of my claim, but, when you say "direct consequences" it's suggested you have some sort of proof for this.
Yes, I'm saying that since there have always been religious undertones that these undertones are an integral part of our American identity.
What you are arguing is tradition for the sake of tradition. You give no reason for why this identity is inherently better than any other future identity except that you yourself are adherent to this identity.
The fourth amendment does not imply a right to privacy, despite what the judicial activists have claimed. It simply prohibits the unreasonable search and seizure of citizens and their property -- particularly by the government (some of the amendments were specifically written to protect the citizens from their government). The amendment was precisely worded and whenever the courts stray from the exact wording of the text, they engage in judicial activism.
That a search would be "unreasonable" suggests that the citizen has some sort of right to privacy that can only be counteracted with a reasonable excuse. Why would anyone object to a search if they had nothing to hide?
By the media giving aid and comfort to the enemy (which means more than just quartering troops), I mean that their reporting is slanted in such a way as to support the enemy cause. Isn't it interesting that the media is making such a fuss about the illegal torture of Iraqi prisoners, blowing things way out of proportion and interfering with the proper investigation of this criminal activity, while giving very little attention to the beheading of the American civilian and almost no attention to the discovery of sarin and mustard gases in Iraq (some of the weapons of mass destruction about which the media continually claims the Bush administration lied). Isn't it interesting that the media continually reports all the death and destruction in Iraq but refuses to report the good things that Americans are doing there (building schools and hospitals, restoring infrastructure, attempting to train local law enforcement, etc.) -- the nature of their reporting gives aid and comfor to the enemy and, no, freedom of the press does not include the right to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
You just argued for a literal interpretation of the constiution, yet when it comes to literally interpreting the freedom of the press, you argue against it. The 1st amendment does not provide a stipulation on the freedom of press. The media can do as it likes.
As for the unfortunate heading of Monsieur Berg plenty of attention has been called to it by the media, and although horrific, it is not nearly as surprising as the abuse from US troops. It is not, as we say, a "scandal", and scandals are more likely to sell newspapers. There is also very little investigation or further details we do not already know about the beheading.
Second, sarin and mustard gas in an unmarked shell so old that its destructive properties are neutralised is hardly what I would call a story. The administration itself has already stated that it does not qualify for what they were searching for, and David Kay has shrugged it off. Also, the whole goal of finding the WMD was not for some sort of egg hunt - it was because the WMD were supposed to constitute a threat. These clearly do not.
But I digress. As per the rules,
5. Support your arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic.
Although a few rogue schools and colleges may be actually doing the things you say - possibly out of ignorance - even your own words do not indicate some widespread push to take freedom of expression from out of the public arena.
